phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] PHC finalists announcement

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHOTMV+H7J34vEqt8CW8eR0b-aiPNoMSW37_8uRtU3VaWJNJVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 14:56:16 -0800
From: Tony Arcieri <bascule@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHC finalists announcement

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com> wrote:

>
> since we are waiting for the decision details, why not review the
> criteria meanwhile?
>

Hi Krisztián, I am trying to understand and summarize your concerns but
when I do they seem like very good reasons for not selecting particular
candidates:

   - Emphasize CPU defense over GPU defense
   - Underdocumented/poorly-specified
   - Unsound cryptographically
   - No good reference implementation
   - Doesn't offer anything novel over existing solutions (e.g. bcrypt,
   scrypt)

These all sound like good reasons to reject candidates to me, and I don't
think the criteria have diverged from the original CFP.

-- 
Tony Arcieri

Content of type "text/html" skipped